Three amendments have been proposed to modernize and streamline the operations of the Commission.
Within the economic review framework that we spoke of earlier, the first amendment will allow claimants to declare, with a minimum of supporting documentation, that the information for which they are seeking exemption--the trade secret--is a trade secret. Minimum documentation in this case means we are going to be asking the claimant to declare: one, this is confidential business information, or a trade secret; two, the value of that information; and three, that there are security measures in place that will protect the confidentiality of that information.
Currently, claimants have to provide detailed documentation to support each one of these three statements. They do so to protect the confidentiality of the information and the potential implications of either financial loss to the claimant or financial gain to the claimant's competitors. This is an administrative burden, not only on the claimants, but on the commission. Industry to date has been quite conscientious in supporting their claims for trade secrecy in terms of the economic justification. With very few exceptions, they have adequately supported these claims. Practically all of them as a result have been found to be valid, again, from an economic point of view.
The commission, with this amendment, will require full documentation in support of a claim when two things happen: one, an affected party makes a submission to the commission; or, two, when there's a validation scheme, which we will be developing with our counsel, that is instituted to take every nth claim in terms of a sampling plan, to ensure that there are no false or frivolous claims.
In summary, the proposal is for a declaration approach, but with a safety net -- the requirement for full documentation remains if an affected party challenges a claim or if a claim is selected through the verification scheme. This is the first amendment; it relates to the first, economic part of the mandate described by Mr. Newton.
The second amendment relates to the second part of our mandate, which is the health and safety compliance review. This amendment will permit claimants who enter into undertakings to voluntarily correct the health and safety documentation when it's found to be non-compliant.
As the act stands now, we absolutely must issue correction orders--we're a quasi-judicial tribunal--and the claimants, even having been told what the compliance issues are, often are ready to make those changes right away. These orders are published in the Canada Gazette, but they don't become binding until at least 75 days: a 45-day period during which they can file appeals, and a following 30-day period after the appeal period ends to allow claimants to comply with the order and submit the amended MSDS to the screening officer.
Allowing these corrections to be made voluntarily will expedite the process of getting more accurate information into the hands of workers. Why? There's a 75-day period through which we are waiting for an appeal period and the submission of the MSDSs with an undertaking that information will be supplied immediately because it will have already been corrected with the submission of the undertaking.
Full compliance will be well ahead of what is achievable with the current system. This will also deal with the concern of claimants that compliance orders imply a reluctance on their part to fulfill their responsibilities for workplace safety, especially when they have already told us that they are fully prepared to provide an amended material safety data sheet without an order being issued.
It's important to note that a correction order will be issued immediately if there is no undertaking or if the undertaking has not been made to the satisfaction of the screening officer. In other words, full compliance will be realized no matter what.
Transparency of this new process will be assured by publishing the content of the undertaking in the Canada Gazette and again on our website. Workers will know what information was corrected voluntarily and accepted by the screening officer. They will be able to ensure immediately what is being made available to them in their workplaces and verify that information.
The third amendment relates to the third element of our mandate, as described earlier by Mr. Newton, and that is to approve the appeals process. This amendment will allow the commission to provide factual clarification of the record of the screening officer to appeal boards when it's needed to facilitate the process.
Our appeals are heard by independent boards, as Mr. Newton described, with three members drawn from industry, labour, and the chair of the appeal board, representing government. Most, if not all, appeals heard to date by the commission's appeal boards would have benefited from additional explanatory information from the commission, but this is not permitted under our current legislation.
We do not seek full standing in these appeal proceedings, but with this amendment, the Commission can serve as a friend of the court, providing information essential to the appeal board when it is needed.
Permitting the commission to do so will expedite the appeals process, and with full and accurate information in the hands of the board, one would assume this will enhance the quality of the decision-making and add credibility to their decision-making abilities. None of this will interfere with the statutory independence of our appeal boards. That independence is absolutely essential for the acceptance of the decisions by the boards.
Those are the three amendments.
I turn it back to Mr. Newton.